At 11:59 PM 6/21/01 -0500, Jeff Peterson wrote:
>"Stephen C. Carlson" wrote:
> As a
>> theory, the combination of Markan priority with Lukan posteriority
>> so straightforward that I'm surprised it had almost no support
>> until Farrer himself (1955).
>
>Farrer's position was anticipated by E. W. Lummis's HOW LUKE WAS
>WRITTEN: CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING THE TWO-DOCUMENT THEORY WITH SPECIAL
>REFERENCE TO THE PHENOMENA OF ORDER IN THE NON-MARCAN MATTER COMMON TO
>MATTHEW AND LUKE (Cambridge: University Press, 1915).

Thanks for pointing out Lummis's work. I have known about it
for a while but have been unable to obtain a copy of it to
review. Nevertheless, it is not entirely clear from the sources
I have on hand just what Lummis's views on the entire synoptic
problem were. For example, Farmer (1964: 111 n.84) quotes Lummis
(1915: 23) as saying: "'It may well be that Lk. took the passage
from Mt., and that Mk. is secondary to Mt., or to Lk., or to both
Mt. and Lk.'" But, of course, Farmer had a knack for quoting
those parts of a work that most favors the Griesbach hypothesis
while not most fully explaining the parts that differ.

Neirynck, MINOR AGREEMENTS (1974: 38 n.117) claims Lummis was
an Augustinian, though the true Augustinian Jameson (1922: 6)
asserts that Lummis's advocation of Luke's use of Matt. and Mark
without Q was "not altogether on the lines here adopted."

Hobbs, "A Quarter-Century Without 'Q'" (1980: 11 n.4) lists
Lummis among those who were "mostly in favor of the priority
of Matthew or of the priority of a lost proto-Mark or proto-
Matthew."

The variance of reports about Lummis indicates to me
that Lummis did not squarely address or was non-committal
on the relationship between Matt. and Mark (much like
Griesbach's COMMENTATIO's never touching on the relationship
between Matt. and Luke). I will, however, defer to anyone
on this list who actually has access to Lummis and can quote
a definitive statement.

>Its appearance
>during the Great War doubtless didn't further its reception, but the
>absence of serious consideration of the hypothesis "Lk used Mk + Mk's
>immediate successor Mt" in the first half of XX likely derives from
>background assumptions regarding the Evangelists' compositional methods.
>
>Ed Sanders has epitomized the assumptions as "No evangelist ever made
>anything up or left anything out." A Farrerian Luke did a good deal of
>both and so was not seriously entertained when the evangelists were
>imagined as collating scrapbooks rather than composing literary portraits.

How true, with the rule-proving exception of the Augustinians
who held an equally inflexible background assumption that the
traditional order was correct. In either case, there was
not much of an environment for the Farrer theory to take
root.

>I'm given to understand that Eduard von Simons also anticipated Farrer
>(HAT DER DRITTE EVANGELIST DEN KANONISCHEN MATTHAšUS BENUTZT? [Bonn:
>Georgi, 1880]), but I haven't been able to examine his work myself.

I'd like to examine this work too, but it is my understanding
that Simons was a three-sourcer: Luke used Matthew in addition
to Mark and Q. It is Luke's use of Matthew that allows Ur-Markus
to be junked.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...